User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 17

  1. #1
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default IxTPs development : Been reading...

    This may be obvious to some but it's just come up whilst I was reading through Lenore's book 'Personality Type: An owner's manual'.

    Using Ti primarily there are two types INTP and ISTP. The book refers to Ti as being personal and actually NOT objective and impersonal as many seem to infer.

    Could it be said to be true that for these types to develop they have to realise that their logic and structure is personal to them and not actually representative of objective truth? Ergo an INTP who wishes to be a more developed and happy person needs to accept that they aren't modelling reality truthfully but rather subjectively and allow room for other's to differ?

    I know this is linked in with the development of F style attributes but it occurred to me that young INTPs seem obsessed with objectivity, I know I was, and that perhaps by letting go of this misconception they will grow and find things more to their liking (young INTPs having a seeming preference for disliking the world as it is).

    Does this make sense?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #2
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    It does. I tend to agree with Technical's [dude over at INTPc] assertion that judging functions are subjective, perceiving functions are objective. The reasoning is that once you begin applying judgments to data, it is impossible to remove either the internal [Ji] or external [Je] subjective principles from that data.

    For example, we can both look at numbers on a spreadsheet and agree that they are 12345, but we don't have to agree on what they mean, because they have been analyzed differently.

    However, he uses his own function system and order. But his reasoning, I think, has merits.



  3. #3
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    It does. I tend to agree with Technical's [dude over at INTPc] assertion that judging functions are subjective, perceiving functions are objective. The reasoning is that once you begin applying judgments to data, it is impossible to remove either the internal [Ji] or external [Je] subjective principles from that data.

    For example, we can both look at numbers on a spreadsheet and agree that they are 12345, but we don't have to agree on what they mean, because they have been analyzed differently.

    However, he uses his own function system and order. But his reasoning, I think, has merits.
    I heard he know's jack

    That manner of looking at function order and they're uses is nice. I did argue with him before that it was isolationist though as he tends to analyse in isolation and ignore that no function is ever in isolation but with his system it really did make me look at why I thought he was wrong which in itself was useful. As I once postulated before, the question was much more useful than the answer could ever be.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  4. #4
    Just a statistic rhinosaur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    I think Technical's system is actually a good example of the kind of subjectivity Xander is talking about. He's reasoned through it, and made improvements to the existing system, and so he thinks it's objective. But until he gets some hard data to support his theories, it can never be. As it is right now, it's just a hypothesis he has, which he is convinced is objectively better than the existing system. At least that's the way I see it. He might come into this thread and say I'm wrong.

  5. #5
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rhinosaur View Post
    I think Technical's system is actually a good example of the kind of subjectivity Xander is talking about. He's reasoned through it, and made improvements to the existing system, and so he thinks it's objective. But until he gets some hard data to support his theories, it can never be. As it is right now, it's just a hypothesis he has, which he is convinced is objectively better than the existing system. At least that's the way I see it. He might come into this thread and say I'm wrong.
    More than that though, his system makes sense of the MBTI to him. More power to him I say. As long as he remains aware that his system is precisely that, his system, no problems.

    (I was going to say this kind of stuff when I posted last but as ever I skipped something somewhere... damned non linear brain!!!)
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  6. #6
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    I heard he know's jack

    That manner of looking at function order and they're uses is nice. I did argue with him before that it was isolationist though as he tends to analyse in isolation and ignore that no function is ever in isolation but with his system it really did make me look at why I thought he was wrong which in itself was useful. As I once postulated before, the question was much more useful than the answer could ever be.
    Yes they seem to be very good friends

    I suppose it's a tad isolationist...but I think removing the introverted and extraverted aspects of each function cleans up some confusion, removes a lot of arbitrary nonsense, etc. I think his function system is good. Makes perfect sense on its own terms. People have difficulty with it when they try to apply MBTI assumptions to it and get confused.

    Quote Originally Posted by rhinosaur View Post
    I think Technical's system is actually a good example of the kind of subjectivity Xander is talking about. He's reasoned through it, and made improvements to the existing system, and so he thinks it's objective. But until he gets some hard data to support his theories, it can never be. As it is right now, it's just a hypothesis he has, which he is convinced is objectively better than the existing system. At least that's the way I see it. He might come into this thread and say I'm wrong.
    I understand. It's a logically coherent system with not much tethering it to actual "data" but really, what typological system does have data? It's nearly impossible to quantify mental processes, and even if you hook someone up to a brain monitor and measure cognitive processes, wether you call something Fi, Fe, or just F is a subjective interpretation of what you're seeing.



  7. #7
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    I suppose it's a tad isolationist...but I think removing the introverted and extraverted aspects of each function cleans up some confusion, removes a lot of arbitrary nonsense, etc. I think his function system is good. Makes perfect sense on its own terms. People have difficulty with it when they try to apply MBTI assumptions to it and get confused.
    Oh don't get me started on people confusing attitudes with functions... that just gets irritating... fast!

    Having said that, this new book makes more sense than I've found previously for the attitude being important and actually outlining the differences between Te and Ti. According to the like five pages I've read it seems that Te and Ti are functionally identical but where they differ is where their priorities lie. Te is more about being consistent with external data and Ti internal data. That much makes sense.

    I wonder if J..Technical has read it?
    I understand. It's a logically coherent system with not much tethering it to actual "data" but really, what typological system does have data? It's nearly impossible to quantify mental processes, and even if you hook someone up to a brain monitor and measure cognitive processes, wether you call something Fi, Fe, or just F is a subjective interpretation of what you're seeing.
    All interpretation, definition and conclusions are subjective. Why is an orange an orange? The point is not whether it should be called an orange but whether the object remains consistent thereby making the description consistent.

    If everyone in your family has a big nose then do you have a big nose? What about if you never speak to anyone except those in your family and they are similarly secluded (avoiding the issue of how this would explain how you all have big noses of course )?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  8. #8
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Would this extend to dom-Fi as well, where an IFP would recognise that the values they hold are not absolute or that they don't neccessarilly govern other people's actions?

    I do agree that Ti is not objective, it just creates a social detachment that might feel objective (Te is the most objective function, if indeed it's appropiate to label any of the functions "objective"). The whole point of Ti is that the user is creating a first-hand understanding of the world based on interaction, like creating a never-ending jigsaw from scratch.

  9. #9
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    There are different levels of "objectivity". Thinking tends to be more objective than Feeling. However; an extraverted attitude is by definition, more objective than an introverted one. Hence, Ti, while being objective because it deals with logic, does still have a very subjective orientation.
    I had also determined perception was more objective than judgment, and from there was able to put together an alternative type lettering system that reduced the four dichotomies down to one, with a scale of the types from must objective to least. INTP Central - View Single Post - Functions in the Brain
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  10. #10
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    ...
    Te is more about being consistent with external data and Ti internal data.
    ...
    I can agree with this. I know that as an INTJ, I am always concerned about consistency when I am DOING something, and have noticed that INTPs have a similar obsession when THINKING something.

    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    ...
    I do agree that Ti is not objective, it just creates a social detachment that might feel objective
    Hmm. Interesting. It creates social detachment. How? And does Fi do that, too? Or if it does create detachment... what kind? And do you mean only in the Dominant position, or Auxiliary as well?

    (Te is the most objective function, if indeed it's appropriate to label any of the functions "objective").
    LOL! I think there was a huge thread where JackFlak was trying to convince everyone the INTPs were the most objective type, or something like that.
    (I was going to post a link, but after trying several things, I couldn't find it.
    Xander posted in it; maybe he remembers.)

    The whole point of Ti is that the user is creating a first-hand understanding of the world based on interaction, like creating a never-ending jigsaw from scratch.
    Wow. I feel sorry for you guys. That sounds like it hurts!

Similar Threads

  1. READ IMMEDIATELY. (You have been warned)
    By Zergling in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 171
    Last Post: 03-15-2012, 05:01 PM
  2. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  3. Early Childhood Reading and Functional Development
    By Zayin-x in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-19-2007, 09:13 AM
  4. Reviews of Type Books: Read First Post
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-15-2007, 09:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO